Google funds research tool for gender role analysis in TV, films

Because scientists can only watch Modern Family so many times.

Google granted $1.2 million to a nonprofit organization to help with gender stereotyping research in the media on Thursday, according to Google's website for its own Global Impact Awards. The money will go toward developing a tool that will automate the process of identifying women and their actions in hundreds of hours of video.

The Geena Davis Institute, the recipient of the grant, was established to conduct studies on the representation of women in the media, including movies and both primetime and children’s TV shows. According to Wired, a recent study done on 129 films and 311 TV shows by the institute showed that 28 percent of people in films were female, fewer women in TV and films are employed in science and technology jobs than the national average, and 28.3 percent of women in family films were identified as wearing “sexy” attire.

With Google’s grant, the institute will reach out to developers to automate the collection of data, designating how women fit into fictional and non-fictional worlds. The institute has not made clear how it hopes to identify women and further establish their marginalization through that automation process (presumably that’s mostly for the developers to figure out), but we imagine a combination of audio and visual analysis that check for a number of typical female identifiers would do the trick.

What we’d most like to see is a tool that could analyze the speech content and patterns of women in TV and films to compare their eloquence with the men presented alongside them. Just don't give that job to Google Voice.

I didn't think there were THAT many "White Chicks" movies Of course, just seeing the previews felt like it pretty much rotted more brain cells than I was willing to lose, so I willfully ignored them as much as possible...

(I'm assuming you meant to use: )

Quote:

only 28 percent of the speaking characters in family films studied were female

Sadly a number of the related marginalization issues are both very subjective and also deeply cultural. If "sexy"/"provactive" clothing is a cultural norm over a generational period, or if there is a generational shift in related cultural norms and attached perceptions, the question can quickly become very complicated in terms of how the data gets presented in relation to a particular generation's cultural viewpoint.

While this isn't quite such an issue for broadly answering "are women marginalized and under represented in the entertainment industry," (an easy 'yes,' the solving of which is made exceptionally difficult due to the wide and deeply rooted structures and influences resulting in a hugely disparate number of male producers, directors, etc), it does present a problem for tracking degrees of particular issues over time.

It will be interesting to see where they go with this, especially in terms of automation.

What we’d most like to see is a tool that could analyze the speech content and patterns of women in TV and films to compare their eloquence with the men presented alongside them. Just don't give that job to Google Voice.

There was a Computer-Supported Cooperative Work paper about the comparison of language use between women and men in IMDB reviews. They found that women who spoke "more like men" ended up with higher "helpfulness" ratings in their scores.

Title is misleading, implies general gender stereotypes as opposed to women-only. As politically-incorrect as it is to say, these issues concern both genders.

EmeraldArcana wrote:

Quote:

What we’d most like to see is a tool that could analyze the speech content and patterns of women in TV and films to compare their eloquence with the men presented alongside them. Just don't give that job to Google Voice.

There was a Computer-Supported Cooperative Work paper about the comparison of language use between women and men in IMDB reviews. They found that women who spoke "more like men" ended up with higher "helpfulness" ratings in their scores.

I'd like to know how they defined speaking "more like men" and speaking "more like women". How exactly does one speak like either through text?

For example, if they were attributing a positive, like more professional speech or sourcing, to men, and a negative, like unprofessional speech, or misuse of hyperbole, to women, I would consider that sexist assumption to be the real problem, not the findings that one is more helpful than the other. That level of simplification seems completely counterproductive.

I'm very interested to see how this tool develops and what it ends up tracking and measuring. Unfortunately it's entirely possible (and all too common) to have shows / movies with plenty of female characters who may get lots of screen time, but who through their characterization still end up upholding and enforcing gender inequality and oppressive gender roles. I don't quite know how you'd quantify and program something to recognize "actually being a human being" though.

I've recently found this girl who does a lot of thorough and well-reasoned (IMHO) analysis of gender roles in many forms of pop culture. I'm eagerly looking forward to her series on common tropes of women in video games, which has been funded by a very successful (and controversial) Kickstarter project, and which should be launching soon. I'd highly recommend checking some of her videos out!

Other than Big Bang Theory (which I could argue about too), there's a very wide wasteland of dumb male leads with competent females. And many of the comedy shows with "successful professional men" revolve around just how incompetent they actually are at "real life".

Most of my television watching is dated at this point, but drawing a blank on competent male leads in comedies going back decades at this point. Some of the shows wander their way around to highlighting -everyone's- flaws.

There's 'Will' of Will and Grace. Who, of course, isn't cast based on his gender so much as his sexual orientation.

Then there's Seinfeld. Who was portrayed in the position of "observer".

The institute has not made clear how it hopes to identify women and further establish their marginalization through that automation process

If they are referring to marginalization in television, I'd say it probably depends on the genre. But to me, as a casual observer who watches more Phineas & Ferb than anything else (another patriarchal travesty, no doubt), most television shows seem to feature women prominently, and usually in a positive light. While it does seem male leads are the norm for dramas, there's usually always a female right there with them, doing approximately the same job (whether it's crime scene investigating, or crime scene investigating, or even crime scene investigating), usually as well or in some cases better than the male. And yes, she'll be attractive and dressed to accentuate that....just like the guy, and practically everyone else on tv except for the required fat guy/woman and old people that apparently aren't required to hit the "attractiveness" bar everyone else is because they're comic relief.

To echo Nevyn's point, I'd say television is far more disparaging towards male characters, especially in the sitcoms. They're essentially formulaic in presenting husbands/fathers as morons, and women/wives as long suffering angels/geniuses that save the men from their buffoonery. I'd like to see a study on that, because that sort of stereotyping is just as damaging and anything women may get, considering the deterioration of the nuclear family and parenting, especially by men. With TV teaching men that they're failures as husbands and fathers, than it's easy for them to say "screw it, why bother, I'll go play xbox". That's a really big issue.

The institute has not made clear how it hopes to identify women and further establish their marginalization through that automation process

If they are referring to marginalization in television, I'd say it probably depends on the genre. But to me, as a casual observer who watches more Phineas & Ferb than anything else (another patriarchal travesty, no doubt), most television shows seem to feature women prominently, and usually in a positive light. While it does seem male leads are the norm for dramas, there's usually always a female right there with them, doing approximately the same job (whether it's crime scene investigating, or crime scene investigating, or even crime scene investigating), usually as well or in some cases better than the male. And yes, she'll be attractive and dressed to accentuate that....just like the guy, and practically everyone else on tv except for the required fat guy/woman and old people that apparently aren't required to hit the "attractiveness" bar everyone else is because they're comic relief.

It's about more than just having females present though, or showing them "in a positive light". What about portraying women as actual, full-fledged people with realistic motivations, desires, reactions, etc. How many of the female characters you're talking about are written as little more than a stereotypical (and very unrealistic) uber-exceptional male character, and then just switched around to be a woman? Now, you could fairly criticize lots of TV writing in general for unrealistic and poorly-developed characters regardless of gender, but the depth of development for female characters does tend to be much less.

Consider the Bechdel Test, a simple set of criteria for evaluating movies (or TV shows, or other stuff, but it was originally movies) that consists of three ridiculously simple things. In order to pass, a movie must 1) have at least two named female characters, who 2) talk to each other at some point 3) about anything other than a man. And it really can be anything; a movie can pass just for having two female characters have a brief 10 second exchange about a rough day at work or something. It sounds so basic and simple that you might think practically all (or at least the overwhelming majority of) movies would pass it, but in fact around 40% of the movies made just in the past year fail.

The implication of that is that still to a large extent, Hollywood does not particularly regard or at least know how to write women as real people or real characters. They are so often either left out of stories completely or added in specifically to be foils or muses for the male characters, or plot devices to fuel the motivations and actions of the men; the men are considered the real characters, the ones who actually have goals and concerns and deal with conflicts and undergo development.

Obviously such a simple test disregards plenty of more subtle factors about any particular movie / story / whatever, and it shouldn't be used to try to say "X passes so it's good, Y fails so it's bad". It is, however, enlightening to look at Hollywood in general and how it measures up.

Quote:

To echo Nevyn's point, I'd say television is far more disparaging towards male characters, especially in the sitcoms. They're essentially formulaic in presenting husbands/fathers as morons, and women/wives as long suffering angels/geniuses that save the men from their buffoonery. I'd like to see a study on that, because that sort of stereotyping is just as damaging and anything women may get, considering the deterioration of the nuclear family and parenting, especially by men. With TV teaching men that they're failures as husbands and fathers, than it's easy for them to say "screw it, why bother, I'll go play xbox". That's a really big issue.

One thing to think about with the trend you're mentioning: how many of the male characters being portrayed negatively (i.e. as morons or buffoons) are in long-term relationships with women? Alternately, how many single male characters are portrayed similarly? Could it possibly be that the writers are subtly betraying beliefs that being tied to a woman is somehow bad and negative for a man, that women are somehow a drain on a man's intellect / competence? Also, you mention the women and wives being "long suffering angels/geniuses", but how often are they spiteful and full of resentment toward their incompetent man? What kind of message does that send about The Way Women Are?

OK, I'll stop my feminist ranting now. I'm not trying to attack anyone, I simply find the topic of gender roles in the media particularly fascinating. It's just, once you start to see this kind of stuff, it's pretty much impossible to unsee it.

Consider the Bechdel Test,... In order to pass, a movie must 1) have at least two named female characters, who 2) talk to each other at some point 3) about anything other than a man. And it really can be anything;...

By that criteria, "Sex in the City" would "pass". (Eventually. They -do- talk about other crap.)

And yet, although the women are professional and actual torchbearers for feminism, I don't consider this program helpful in reshaping people's views of females. At least, not in a positive direction.

Consider the Bechdel Test,... In order to pass, a movie must 1) have at least two named female characters, who 2) talk to each other at some point 3) about anything other than a man. And it really can be anything;...

By that criteria, "Sex in the City" would "pass". (Eventually. They -do- talk about other crap.)

And yet, although the women are professional and actual torchbearers for feminism, I don't consider this program helpful in reshaping people's views of females. At least, not in a positive direction.

And "Bewitched" would pass. And "I Love Lucy".

I think to apply the Bechdel test to TV, you'd have to apply it to each episode individually and pass/fail the show based on the overall results. If 50% of the episodes passed, then the show would be considered to pass. Or something like that.

And don't be so quick to dismiss the role that Sex and the City had in feminism: "And to dismiss the programme entirely on the basis of its shortcomings as a feminist text would also be to lose out on what it does deliver. Just to take the most headline-grabbing example, that includes some pretty frank discussion of sex, in which female sexual pleasure and agency is obviously considered a fundamental right, rather than a privilege. McCabe says, "The way they spoke, and the things they talked about, were revolutionary"

What about analyzing male roles as well? It seems to me everyone is obsessed with how women are portrayed, often overly so and at the expense of men. I saw an ad on the side of a bus the other day saying "Girls will lead our world forward". How much backlash would there be if there was an ad saying "Boys will lead our world forward". I'm certainly not saying that concern with gender stereotypes is wrong, but perhaps as long as we're concerned with gender equality, we should apply that concern equally between the genders.

One thing to think about with the trend you're mentioning: how many of the male characters being portrayed negatively (i.e. as morons or buffoons) are in long-term relationships with women? Alternately, how many single male characters are portrayed similarly? Could it possibly be that the writers are subtly betraying beliefs that being tied to a woman is somehow bad and negative for a man, that women are somehow a drain on a man's intellect / competence? Also, you mention the women and wives being "long suffering angels/geniuses", but how often are they spiteful and full of resentment toward their incompetent man? What kind of message does that send about The Way Women Are?.

Almost all of the sitcoms that portray the male as a buffoon have a flashback episode about how they met. In all of them the man is a buffoon before he ever met his future wife. If anything, it shows that women have poor taste in men, not that they drain a man's intellect. Also, any secondary male characters who aren't married are just as buffoonerish as the lead. But, if you twist anything, you can keep going back and forth to make it look like either gender is being negatively stereotyped, you have to look at the most basic parts. If the man is a buffoon and the woman is the one who fixes the problems, than the man is being negatively portrayed, if the woman is buffoonish, than she is negatively portrayed. Ultimately though, you have to watch the show as a whole, because even if one or two characters are ridiculous, it doesn't matter if there are others who are perfectly capable who are the same gender.

Consider the Bechdel Test,... In order to pass, a movie must 1) have at least two named female characters, who 2) talk to each other at some point 3) about anything other than a man. And it really can be anything;...

By that criteria, "Sex in the City" would "pass". (Eventually. They -do- talk about other crap.)

And yet, although the women are professional and actual torchbearers for feminism, I don't consider this program helpful in reshaping people's views of females. At least, not in a positive direction.

And "Bewitched" would pass. And "I Love Lucy".

I'd say that the view of females in the movies/television are far more "positive" then males. Does CSI and it's clones and other popular television display a positive image of males?

Also curios to what a positive view of females is? Women that like handbags are bad, women with hairy legs are good, right?

Regarding the Bechdel Test, you can easily device a test that shows an expected/preferred outcome.

Consider the Bechdel Test,... In order to pass, a movie must 1) have at least two named female characters, who 2) talk to each other at some point 3) about anything other than a man. And it really can be anything;...

By that criteria, "Sex in the City" would "pass". (Eventually. They -do- talk about other crap.)

And yet, although the women are professional and actual torchbearers for feminism, I don't consider this program helpful in reshaping people's views of females. At least, not in a positive direction.

And "Bewitched" would pass. And "I Love Lucy".

As BobbyJ001 says, the Bechdel Test doesn't say much about the quality of the movie and I don't think it says much about how feminist it is either. I'm know there are great movies that don't pass it and bad movies that do. The point is that the Bechdel Test has extremely weak requirements for a movie to pass, and still many don't. I find it interesting that I didn't notice how strong this strange focus on men in movies was before I learned about this test. It made me surprised and intrigued.

One thing to think about with the trend you're mentioning: how many of the male characters being portrayed negatively (i.e. as morons or buffoons) are in long-term relationships with women? Alternately, how many single male characters are portrayed similarly? Could it possibly be that the writers are subtly betraying beliefs that being tied to a woman is somehow bad and negative for a man, that women are somehow a drain on a man's intellect / competence? Also, you mention the women and wives being "long suffering angels/geniuses", but how often are they spiteful and full of resentment toward their incompetent man? What kind of message does that send about The Way Women Are?.

Almost all of the sitcoms that portray the male as a buffoon have a flashback episode about how they met. In all of them the man is a buffoon before he ever met his future wife. If anything, it shows that women have poor taste in men, not that they drain a man's intellect. Also, any secondary male characters who aren't married are just as buffoonerish as the lead. But, if you twist anything, you can keep going back and forth to make it look like either gender is being negatively stereotyped, you have to look at the most basic parts. If the man is a buffoon and the woman is the one who fixes the problems, than the man is being negatively portrayed, if the woman is buffoonish, than she is negatively portrayed. Ultimately though, you have to watch the show as a whole, because even if one or two characters are ridiculous, it doesn't matter if there are others who are perfectly capable who are the same gender.

Or alternately, television writers are mostly uninspired hacks who recycle the same characters, scripts, and even jokes show after show because it was funny in 1950. Big producers have no interest in selling anything new and compelling, because there's a risk that might not be profitable.

It's telling just how rare shows like All In The Family and Roseanne are.

Of course, since everyone's so tired of seeing new shows nearly identical to reruns that they're rarely profitable anyway, scripted shows have almost entirely been replaced by "reality" on network TV and basic cable; now the whole debate is almost moot. Instead, we get to see the worst examples of humanity across all sexes, cultures, and classes paraded for drama, what an improvement.

What we’d most like to see is a tool that could analyze the speech content and patterns of women in TV and films to compare their eloquence with the men presented alongside them.

Hear, hear! I'm really tired of characters (and it does seem to be women more often than men) being stupider than they should be to serve plot points. Bones has lots of prime examples, but it's far from alone.